In a genuine hanging belay, the anchor has to be over your head and you have to face in....

I am curious about belaying off the figure 8. Are there any circumstances where the knot could get ring loaded risking capsizing?

I'll post a picture (or maybe a video) at some point. In the meantime, what banjoele said.

The rationale for clipping into the figure-eight tie-in knot rather than the belay loop is primarily to keep all loads off the harness and so off the belayer's body. There is no discomfort of any kind in holding a hanging climber, even if he has to prussik up the rope a bit (had to do this a few years ago). The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay.

There is another reason, perhaps more important, when it comes to belaying the leader. If you have to hold a factor-2 fall on your harness, in addition to the very considerable problems of hanging on to a rope that will inevitably run through the belay device, you will be taking some of the impact on your body, and it is going to hurt. Moreover, the belay loop pulling down on the harness with the tie-in pulling up puts some big opposing loads on harness points that will be loaded like a screamer, which can't be a good thing for the harness. With the set-up I described, the load goes to the anchor, mitigated by the stretch in the belayer's tie-in (which or course is with the rope and not with some low-stretch sling material), and the harness and belayer's body is spared any destructive loads.

I learned this method from posts of Chris Harmston on the old rec.climbing. Chris was a BD engineer at the time and remains one of the most authoritative voices on equipment safety issues I know of.

My question is regarding a factor 2 fall. Would you want all of the force going to the anchor in this case? I would think any disbursement of force you could do would be good. I have never held, been involved in or know personally anyone who has been involved in a factor 2 fall. Hopefully that will remain true.

Maybe I'm misreading something, but how would you get a Factor 2 fall out of the second climber?

I'm assuming, of course, that the "Belay direct off the anchor" switches to "Belay off your harness" when switching from bringing up a second to belaying a leader. If that assumption is false, I will retract my question.

Yes. Rgold mentioned that he keeps the belay configuration as he transitions to lead belaying for the next pitch.

Josh

I belay from my harness...off the anchor. To do this, I use clovehitchology to easily set up a taut anchor line for whatever belay position I've chosen, and then clip my belay device to the tie-in knot loop, not the harness belay loop.

Yeah, I'm assuming he has to be talking about a second one, because clipping through the first one is going to on the knot itself which is a big no-no for any knot, since you want it loading the bight.

If it is just the one eight, I don't see how you could guarentee a proper load onto the bight with the set up he is describing.

I'm still not sure that it is sufficiently advantageous over using the belay loop.

I remember reading Chris's suggestion years ago and thinking: Is my harness really going to be ripped apart in a severe fall if I don't do this? I have a hard time taking that threat seriously.

I don't think it is so much "ripping the harness apart" as giving you a little more freedom of movement when the system is loaded.

No, it was about harness integrity:

Your belay biner should connect directly to the rope tie in loop so that the forces of the belay can link directly to the anchor. Otherwise, the forces from a severe fall would run from your belay biner to the belay loop, to the harness, to the rope loop to the anchor. This would tend to rip the harness apart and the results are very unpredictable.

link

If you read rgold's post, you'll see that "harness integrity" aspect isn't a big deal. It's really more about having all the advantages that come with belaying off the harness with some additional comfort for the belayer.

And, "escaping the belay" is not really any different whether you clip the belay into your belay loop or the "ring" formed by the tie-in.

No, it was about harness integrity:

Your belay biner should connect directly to the rope tie in loop so that the forces of the belay can link directly to the anchor. Otherwise, the forces from a severe fall would run from your belay biner to the belay loop, to the harness, to the rope loop to the anchor. This would tend to rip the harness apart and the results are very unpredictable.

link

If you position yourself so that most of the force is taken directly by the anchor then there is no issue. You would have to take the brunt of the fall force with the legs to ring load the knot. With the right geometry it makes sense but I'm still not sure that it is sufficiently advantageous over using the belay loop.

I just cant get around envisioning this.

I'll post a picture (or maybe a video) at some point. In the meantime, what banjoele said.

The rationale for clipping into the figure-eight tie-in knot rather than the belay loop is primarily to keep all loads off the harness and so off the belayer's body. There is no discomfort of any kind in holding a hanging climber, even if he has to prussik up the rope a bit (had to do this a few years ago). The load is entirely on the anchor, but you keep the superior take-in speed, slack control, ease of effort, lowering ability, and adaptability to varied anchor positions of the harness belay.

There is another reason, perhaps more important, when it comes to belaying the leader. If you have to hold a factor-2 fall on your harness, in addition to the very considerable problems of hanging on to a rope that will inevitably run through the belay device, you will be taking some of the impact on your body, and it is going to hurt. Moreover, the belay loop pulling down on the harness with the tie-in pulling up puts some big opposing loads on harness points that will be loaded like a screamer, which can't be a good thing for the harness. With the set-up I described, the load goes to the anchor, mitigated by the stretch in the belayer's tie-in (which or course is with the rope and not with some low-stretch sling material), and the harness and belayer's body is spared any destructive loads.

I learned this method from posts of Chris Harmston on the old rec.climbing. Chris was a BD engineer at the time and remains one of the most authoritative voices on equipment safety issues I know of.

If you tie in with a bowline, be aware that a single bowline is not capable of holding an internal pulling-apart force.

if you clip the belay device into both the tie-in loop *and* the belay loop, you get the benefit of rgold's method, while still having the belay loop act as a backup.

Let's rephrase that statement so that it really is honest: You have so little respect for the quality of your seconds' climb that you don't think it's worth trying to give them a quality belay. Well, you and I would last as climbing partners for exactly one climb. I find your attitude deplorable. Your second is not climbing to clean gear. He's climbing to climb—normally to free climb—and he deserves as good a belay as he does when leading.

Jay

There is no pulling-apart force. Think about it.



A backup to what? In rgold's method you are attached to the anchor solely with the rope. If your tie-in loop fails you lose that connection.